Forget Me Not Care Providers Ltd

On this page

• Overview
• Learning culture
• Safe systems, pathways and transitions
• Safeguarding
• Involving people to manage risks
• Safe environments
• Safe and effective staffing
• Infection prevention and control
• Medicines optimisation

Safe – this means we looked for evidence that people were protected from abuse and avoidable harm.

This is the first assessment for this newly registered service. This key question has been rated good.

This meant people were safe and protected from avoidable harm.

This service scored 72 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

The provider had a proactive and positive culture of safety, based on openness and honesty. Staff listened to concerns about safety and investigated and reported safety events. Lessons were learnt to continually identify and embed good practice. The registered manager was open and transparent and demonstrated commitment to drive improvement at the service. Where incidents or accidents had occurred appropriate follow up was completed and lessons learned shared with staff to mitigate future risk.

The provider worked with people and healthcare partners to establish and maintain safe systems of care, in which safety was managed or monitored. They made sure there was continuity of care, including when people moved between different services. People’s needs were assessed before support commenced with involvement of both people and, where appropriate, their families. The service was in the process of transitioning from paper records to an electronic system. Some information gathered at assessment was recorded and kept separately to the care plan and records of reviews were completed on the documents kept at each location not on office copies. Further detail in some areas of care records would also improve clarity and understanding. This was a recording concern only with no evidence of impact to people. The registered manager confirmed that existing paper-based information was to be reviewed, expanded and all necessary information be more easily accessible for staff when added to the new system. This would also ensure more effective information sharing with other parties when documents needed to be shared.

The provider worked with people and healthcare partners to understand what being safe meant to them and the best way to achieve that. Staff concentrated on improving people’s lives while protecting their right to live in safety, free from bullying, harassment, abuse, discrimination, avoidable harm and neglect. The provider shared concerns quickly and appropriately. People and their relatives told us they felt safe with the support provided by the service. One relative told us when asked if safe support was provided, “Absolutely. 100%.” Staff told us they felt confident to raise concerns if they felt people were at risk and that action would be taken. One staff member told us, “I would report my concerns immediately following the safeguarding procedure. I know it is important to protect the person, record what I have observed and inform the appropriate manager without delay.” The principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) were understood by the registered manager and there were processes in place to review people’s capacity in line with the MCA. Some further detail needed adding to care plans about capacity which had already been addressed for those people with care records already on the electronic system.The Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) provides a legal framework for making particular decisions on behalf of people who may lack the mental capacity to do so for themselves. The MCA requires that, as far as possible, people make their own decisions and are helped to do so when needed. When they lack mental capacity to take particular decisions, any made on their behalf must be in their best interests and as least restrictive as possible. People can only be deprived of their liberty to receive care and treatment when this is in their best interests and legally authorised under the Mental Capacity Act (MCA). We found the service overall was working within the principles of the MCA.

The provider worked with people to understand and manage risks by thinking holistically. Staff provided care to meet people’s needs that was safe, supportive and enabled people to do the things that mattered to them. Risk assessments and care planning were completed with the person and families, reflecting individual needs, communication styles and preferences. Staff demonstrated a clear understanding of their roles and responsibilities in assessing, managing and mitigating risks. One staff member told us, “I would involve the service user with completing a person-centred risk assessment with identifying what the risk/hazard is. I would then inform management and team members to ensure the care plan is updated and for this to be reviewed regularly.”

The provider detected and controlled potential risks in the care environment. They made sure equipment, facilities and technology supported the delivery of safe care. Staff had received training in health and safety and were aware of risks associated with the environment. One staff member told us, “I manage risk by identifying and assessing safety. Report concerns to manager and document.” Environmental risks were assessed prior to support starting and regularly reviewed to safeguard people and staff. The registered manager was to introduce a more formal processes of recording ongoing scheduled checks.

The provider made sure there were enough qualified, skilled and experienced staff, who received effective support, supervision and development. They worked together well to provide safe care that met people’s individual needs. Recruitment procedures were in place, so people were cared for by suitably qualified staff who had been assessed as safe to work with people. However, checks of employment history and references needed to be made more robust to fully ensure safe recruitment of staff. The registered manager took immediate action during the assessment to review and improve the recruitment process, demonstrating a proactive approach to ensuring robust recruitment practices. Staff completed an induction on commencement of employment and received ongoing training and refreshers to enable them to carry out their role effectively. We reviewed electronic records of visits completed and noted no concerns around call times, reliability or consistency. Staff, people or relatives also raised no concerns about visits. One person told us, “No they’ve never missed a call. If they are running a bit late (due to traffic) they always let me know.” Staff told us they felt supported in their roles and received regular support and supervision. One staff member told us, “I am very supported. If I have any concerns or if anything is worrying me my manager will act on it straight away. I am always able to access training and supported with this.”

The provider assessed and managed the risk of infection. They detected and controlled the risk of it spreading and shared concerns with appropriate agencies promptly. Staff received training in infection prevention and control (IPC) to support safe working practices. Effective systems were in place to support good infection control practices and help protect people from the risk of infection. No concerns were raised by staff, people using the service, or their relatives regarding the availability of personal protective equipment (PPE) or the arrangements in place for preventing and managing infections. One person told us, “They do wear their gloves when they come in and such like.”

The provider made sure that medicines and treatments were safe and met people’s needs, capacities and preferences. Staff involved people in planning, including when changes happened. People were supported by staff who followed systems and processes to administer, record and store medicines safely. One person needed the information in their care plan updating to reflect the medicine on the Medication Administration Record (MAR). This was addressed immediately by the registered manager. People and their families told us that they received their medicines as prescribed and on time. One relative told us, “[name of relative] needs tablets in a morning and evening. Not heard of any issues or missed medication so quite pleased.”